Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 6

एतान्यपि तु कर्माणि ৷৷. निश्चितं मतमुत्तमम् -- यहाँ एतानि पदसे पूर्वश्लोकमें कहे यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्मोंकी तथा अपि पदसे शास्त्रविहित पठनपाठन? खेतीव्यापार आदि जीविकासम्बन्धी कर्म शास्त्रकी मर्यादाके अनुसार खानापीना? उठनाबैठना? सोनाजागना आदि शारीरिक कर्म और परिस्थितिके अनुसार सामने आये अवश्य कर्तव्यकर्म -- इन सभी कर्मोंको लेना चाहिये। इन समस्त कर्मोंको आसक्ति और फलेच्छाका त्याग करके जरूर करना चाहिये। अपनी कामना? ममता और आसक्तिका त्याग करके कर्मोंको केवल प्राणिमात्रके हितके लिये करनेसे कर्मोंका प्रवाह संसारके लिये और योग अपने लिये हो जाता है। परन्तु कर्मोंको अपने लिये करनेसे कर्म बन्धनकारक हो जाते हैं -- अपने व्यक्तित्वको नष्ट नहीं होने देते।गीतामें कहीं सङ्ग(आसक्ति) के त्यागकी बात आती है और कहीं कर्मोंके फलके त्यागकी बात आती है। इस श्लोकमें सङ्ग और फल -- दोनोंके त्यागकी बात आयी है। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि गीतामें जहाँ सङ्गके त्यागकी बात कही है? वहाँ उसके साथ फलके त्यागकी बात भी समझ लेनी चाहिये और जहाँ फलके त्यागकी बात कही है? वहाँ उसके साथ सङ्गके त्यागकी बात भी समझ लेनी चाहिये। यहाँ अर्जुनने त्यागके तत्त्वकी बात पूछी है अतः भगवान्ने त्यागका यह तत्त्व बताया है कि सङ्ग (आसक्ति) और फल -- दोनोंका ही त्याग करना चाहिये? जिससे साधकको यह जानकारी स्पष्ट हो जाय कि आसक्ति न तो कर्ममें रहनी चाहिये और न फलमें ही रहनी चाहिये। आसक्ति न रहनेसे मन? बुद्धि? इन्द्रियाँ? शरीर आदि कर्म करनेके औजारों(करणों)में तथा प्राप्त वस्तुओँमें ममता नहीं रहती (गीता 5। 11)।सङ्ग (आसक्ति या सम्बन्ध) सूक्ष्म होता है और फलेच्छा स्थूल होती है। सङ्ग या आसक्तिकी सूक्ष्मता वहाँतक है? जहाँ चेतनस्वरूपने नाशवान्के साथ सम्बन्ध जोड़ा है। वहीँसे आसक्ति पैदा होती है? जिससे जन्ममरण आदि सब अनर्थ होते -- कारणं गुणसङ्गोऽस्य सदसद्योनिजन्मसु (गीता 13। 21)। आसक्तिका त्याग करनेसे नाशवान्के साथ जोड़े हुए सम्बन्धका विच्छेद हो जाता है और स्वतःस्वाभाविक रहनेवाली असङ्गताका अनुभव हो जाता है।इस विषयमें एक और बात समझनेकी है कि कई दार्शनिक इस नाशवान् संसारको असत् मानते हैं क्योंकि यह पहले भी नहीं था और पीछे भी नहीं रहेगा? इसलिये वर्तमानमें भी यह नहीं है जैसे -- स्वप्न। कई दार्शनिकोंका यह मत है कि संसार परिवर्तनशील है? हरदम बदलता रहता है? कभी एक रूप नहीं रहता जैसे -- अपना शरीर। कई यह मानते हैं कि परिवर्तनशील होनेपर भी संसारका कभी अभाव नहीं होता? प्रत्युत तत्त्वसे सदा रहता है जैसे -- जल (जल ही बर्फ? बादल? भाप और परमाणुरूपसे हो जाता है? पर स्वरूपसे वह मिटता नहीं)। इस तरह अनेक मतभेद हैं किन्तु नाशवान् जडका अपने अविनाशी चेतनस्वरूपके साथ कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं है? इसमें किसी भी दार्शनिकका मतभेद नहीं है। सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा पदोंसे भगवान्ने उसी सम्बन्धका त्याग कहा है।प्रकृति सत् है या असत् है अथवा सत्असत्से विलक्षण है अनादिसान्त है या अनादिअनन्त है इस झगड़ेमें पड़कर साधकको अपना अमूल्य समय खर्च नहीं करना चाहिये? प्रत्युत इस प्रकृतिसे तथा प्रकृतिके कार्य शरीरसंसारसे अपना सम्बन्धविच्छेद करना चाहिये? जो कि स्वतः हो ही रहा है। स्वतः होनेवाले सम्बन्धविच्छेदका केवल अनुभव करना है कि शरीर तो प्रतिक्षण बदलता ही रहता है और स्वयं निर्विकाररूपसे सदा ज्योंकात्यों रहता है।अब प्रश्न यह होता है कि फल क्या है प्रारब्धकर्मके अनुसार अभी हमें जो परिस्थिति? वस्तु? देश? काल आदि प्राप्त हैं? वह सब कर्मोंका प्राप्त फल है और भविष्यमें जो परिस्थिति? वस्तु आदि प्राप्त होनेवाली है? वह सब कर्मोंका अप्राप्त फल है। प्राप्त तथा अप्राप्त फलमें आसक्ति रहनेके कारण ही प्राप्तमें ममता और अप्राप्तकी कामना होती है। इसलिये भगवान्ने त्यक्त्वा फलानि च (टिप्पणी प0 873) कहकर फलोंका त्याग करनेकी बात कही है।कर्मफलका त्याग क्यों करना चाहिये क्योंकि कर्मफल हमारे साथ रहनेवाला है ही नहीं। कारण यह है कि जिन कर्मोंसे फल बनता है? उन कर्मोंका आरम्भ और अन्त होता है अतः उनका फल भी प्राप्त और नष्ट होनेवाला ही है। इसलिये कर्मफलका त्याग करना है। फलके त्यागमें वस्तुतः फलकी आसक्तिका? कामनाका ही त्याग करना है। वास्तवमें आसक्ति हमारे स्वरूपमें है नहीं? केवल मानी हुई है।दूसरी बात? जो अपना स्वरूप होता है? उसका त्याग नहीं होता जैसे -- प्रज्वलित अग्नि उष्णता और प्रकाशका त्याग नहीं कर सकती। जो चीज अपनी नहीं होती? उसका भी त्याग नहीं होता जैसे -- संसारमें अनेक वस्तुएँ पड़ी हैं परन्तु उनका हम त्याग करें -- ऐसा कहना भी नहीं बनता क्योंकि वे वस्तुएँ हमारी हैं ही नहीं। इसलिये त्याग उसीका होता है? जो वास्तवमें अपना नहीं है? पर जिसको अपना मान लिया है। ऐसे ही प्रकृति और प्रकृतिके कार्य शरीर आदि हमारे नहीं हैं? फिर भी उनको हम अपना मानते हैं? तो इस अपनेपनकी मान्यताका ही त्याग करना है। मनुष्यके सामने कर्तव्यरूपसे जो कर्म आ जाय? उसको फल और आसक्तिका त्याग करके सावधानीके साथ तत्परतापूर्वक करना चाहिये -- कर्तव्यानि। कर्मयोगमें विधिनिषेधको लेकर अमुक काम करना है और अमुक काम नहीं करना है -- ऐसा विचार तो करना ही है परन्तु अमुक काम ब़ड़ा है और अमुक काम छोटा है -- ऐसा विचार नहीं करना है। कारण कि जहाँ कर्म और उसके फलसे अपना कोई सम्बन्ध ही नहीं है? वहाँ यह कर्म बड़ा है? यह कर्म छोटा है इस कर्मका फल बड़ा है? इस कर्मका फल छोटा है -- ऐसा विचार हो ही नहीं सकता। कर्मका बड़ा या छोटा होना फलकी इच्छाके कारण ही दीखता है? जब कि कर्मयोगमें फलेच्छाका त्याग होता है। ,कर्म करना रागपूर्तिके लिये भी होता है और रागनिवृत्तिके लिये भी। कर्मयोगी रागनिवृत्तिके लिये अर्थात् करनेका राग मिटानेके लिये ही सम्पूर्ण कर्तव्यकर्म करता है -- आरुरुक्षोर्मुनेर्योगं कर्म कारणमुच्यते (गीता 6। 3)? न कर्मणामनारम्भान्नैष्कर्म्यं पुरुषोऽश्नुते (गीता 3। 4)। अपने लिये कर्म करनेसे करनेका राग बढ़ता है। इसलिये कर्मयोगी कोई भी कर्म अपने लिये नहीं करता? प्रत्युत केवल दूसरोंके हितके लिये ही करता है। उसके स्थूलशरीरमें होनेवाली क्रिया? सूक्ष्मशरीरमें होनेवाला परहितचिन्तन तथा कारणशरीरमें होनेवाली स्थिरता -- तीनों ही दूसरोंके हितके लिये होती हैं? अपने लिये नहीं। इसलिये उसका करनेका राग सुगमतासे मिट जाता है। परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्तिमें संसारका राग ही बाधक है। अतः राग मिटनेपर कर्मयोगीको परमात्मतत्त्वकी प्राप्ति अपनेआप हो जाती है (गीता 4। 38)।कर्तव्य शब्दका अर्थ होता है -- जिसको हम कर सकते हैं तथा जिसको जरूर करना चाहिये और जिसको करनेसे उद्देश्यकी सिद्धि जरूर होती है। उद्देश्य वही कहलाता है? जो नित्यसिद्ध और अनुत्पन्न है अर्थात् जो अनादि है और जिसका कभी विनाश नहीं होता। उस उद्देश्यकी सिद्धि मनुष्यजन्ममें ही होती है और उसकी सिद्धिके लिये ही मनुष्यशरीर मिला है? न कि कर्मजन्य परिस्थितिरूप सुखदुःख भोगनेके लिये। कर्मजन्य परिस्थिति वह होती है? जो उत्पन्न और नष्ट होती हो। वह परिस्थिति तो मनुष्यके अलावा पशुपक्षी? कीटपतङ्ग? वृक्षलता? नारकीयस्वर्गीय आदि योनियोंके प्राणियोंको भी मिलती है? जहाँ कर्तव्यका कोई प्रश्न ही नहीं है और जहाँ उद्देश्यकी पूर्तिका अधिकार भी नहीं है।भगवान्के द्वारा अपने मतको निश्चितम् कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि इस मतमें सन्देहकी कोई गुंजाइश नहीं है? यह मत अटल है अर्थात् यह किञ्चिन्मात्र भी इधरउधर नहीं हो सकता और उत्तमम् कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि,इस मतमें शास्त्रीय दृष्टिसे कोई कमी नहीं है? प्रत्युत यह पूर्णताको प्राप्त करानेवाला है। सम्बन्ध -- इसी अध्यायके चौथे श्लोकमें भगवान्ने तीन प्रकारके त्यागकी बात कही थी। अब आगेके तीन श्लोकोंमें उसी त्रिविध त्यागका वर्णन करते हैं।

जो पवित्र करनेवाले बतलाये गये हैं? ऐसे ये यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्म भी तद्विषयक आसक्ति और फलका त्याग करके ही किये जाने चाहिये? अर्थात् आसक्ति और फलके त्यागपूर्वक ही इनका अनुष्ठान करना उचित है। यह मेरा निश्चय किया हुआ उत्तम मत है। इस विषयमें मेरा निश्चय सुन इस प्रकार प्रतिज्ञा करके और ( उनकी कर्तव्यतामें ) पावनत्वरूप हेतु बतलाकर जो ऐसा कहना है कि? ये कर्म किये जाने चाहिये यह मेरा निश्चित उत्तम मत है यह प्रतिज्ञा किये हुए विषयका उपसंहार ही है? किसी अपूर्व विषयका वर्णन नहीं है क्योंकि एतानि शब्दका आशय प्रकरणमें अत्यन्त निकटवर्ती विषयको ही लक्ष्य कराना होता है। आसक्तियुक्त और फलेच्छुक मनुष्योंके लिये यद्यपि ये ( यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप ) कर्म बन्धनके कारण हैं? तो भी मुमुक्षुको ( फलआसक्तिसे रहित होकर ) करने चाहिये? यही अपि शब्दका अभिप्राय है। यहाँ,( यज्ञ? दान और तपसे अतिरिक्त ) अन्य ( काम्य ) कर्मोंको लक्ष्य करके एतानि के साथ अपि शब्दका,प्रयोग नहीं है। कुछ अन्य टीकाकार कहते हैं कि नित्यकर्मोंके फलका अभाव होनेके कारण उनको फल और आसक्ति छोड़कर कर्तव्य बतलाना नहीं बन सकता? ( अतः ) एतान्यपि इस पदका अभिप्राय यह है कि जो नित्यकर्मोंसे अतिरिक्त काम्य कर्म है वे भी करने चाहिये? फिर यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप नित्यकर्मोंके विषयमें तो कहना ही क्या है। यह अर्थ ( करना ) ठीक नहीं क्योंकि यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैव पावनानि इत्यादि वचनोंसे नित्यकर्मोंका भी फल होता है यह सिद्ध किया गया है। नित्यकर्मोंको भी बन्धनकारक होनेकी आशङ्कासे छोड़नेकी इच्छा रखनेवाले मुमुक्षुकी प्रवृत्ति काम्यकर्मोंमें कैसे हो सकती है इसके सिवा सकाम कर्म अत्यन्त निकृष्ट हैं इस कथनमें काम्यकर्मोंकी निन्दा की जानेके कारण और,यथार्थ कर्मके अतिरिक्त अन्य कर्म बन्धन कारक हैं इस कथनसे काम्यकर्म बन्धनकारक माने जानेके कारण? एवं वेद त्रिगुणात्मक (संसार) को विषय करनेवाले हैं तीनों वेदोंको जाननेवाले सोमरस पीनेवाले पुण्य क्षीण होनेपर मृत्युलोकमें आ जाते हैं ऐसा कहा जानेके कारण और साथ ही काम्यकर्मोंका विषय बहुत दूर व्यवधानयुक्त होनेके कारण भी ( यह सिद्ध होता है कि ) एतान्यपि यह कथन काम्यकर्मोंके विषयमें नहीं है।

He concludes the promised meaning — 'Etānyapi' etc. He explains the letters of the concluding verse — by 'Etāni' etc. Having stated the literal meaning, he states the purport — 'Niścayam'. He states the indicator in the conclusion of the subject matter — 'Etānyapi'.

He shows the intended meaning of the word 'api' — 'Sāsaṅgasya' etc. He mentions what is to be excluded — 'Na tu' etc.

He presents the view that the sentence 'Etānyapi' etc. is not about Nitya (obligatory) actions — 'Anye' (others). If this is not about Nitya actions, then what is it about? Doubting thus, introducing the sentence, he explains — 'Etāni' etc.

He refutes the objection raised by accepting fruitlessness of Nityas as unjustified — 'Tadasat'. As for 'Kamya actions are also to be done', he refutes that — 'Nityānyapi'.

Moreover, since Kamya actions are censured by the Lord, there is no performance of them for a seeker of liberation, he says — 'Dūreṇa' [Gita 2.49] etc. Moreover, because Kamya actions have fruits contrary to the liberation desired by the seeker of liberation, there is no performance of them by him, he says — 'Yajñārthāt' [Gita 3.9] etc. That Kamya actions are causes of bondage is certain; right here he shows the favorability of preceding and succeeding sentences — 'Traiguṇya' [Gita 2.45] etc.

Moreover, since in the previous verse Nitya actions like sacrifice etc. were the subject, by reference through the word 'etat' which denotes what is close; and since Kamya actions being separated (distant) by 'of Kamya actions' [Gita 18.2] are not the subject of the word 'etat' which refers to what is close; therefore Kamya actions do not deserve the designation 'Etānyapi', he says — 'Dūre' etc.

He concludes the promised meaning. 'Etāni' — sacrifice, charity, austerity; actions which are causes of bondage for 'Sasaṅga' — one seeking fruit — are to be done by seekers of liberation for purification of mind, 'tyaktvā' — abandoning — 'saṅgam' — attachment to agency, and 'phalāni' — fruits; this is 'niścitam' — certain — opinion of Me — the Supreme Lord Vasudeva.

Because this certain opinion of Mine is 'uttamam' — most excellent. Or, because it is excellent, it is My certain [opinion]. Addressing as 'Pārtha' is to indicate — 'Since you are related to Me, My certain opinion alone is to be accepted by you'.

As for what others describe that the word 'api' has the meaning of the word 'eva', that is not to be respected. Because abandoning the own meaning [of a word] when it is possible [to keep it] is unjustified.

Thus having stated the view of non-abandonment, out of eagerness He first shows His own favored view of combination of Tyaga and non-Tyaga (Atyaga) — 'Etāni'. The word 'tu' (but) shows distinction from the previously presented view. The word 'api' is in the sense of the word 'eva' (only/indeed).

'Etāni' — these very actions sacrifice, charity, austerity; 'saṅgaṃ tyaktvā' — abandoning attachment in the form of the pride 'I am the doer of these, these must necessarily be done by me' caused by superimposition of age, caste etc.; and abandoning 'phalāni ca' — fruits also, like 'by doing these I will attain heaven or purification of mind or knowledge'; by 'cha' abandoning also the intention 'by not doing these I will incur sin'; they are to be done by a person of unattached nature like one established in Brahman — such is 'me' — My — opinion, 'uttamam' — superior to the previous view.

For there (in the previous view), performance of action is enjoined with attachment in the form of pride of agency and out of fear of incurring sin. But here, due to the absence of that, there is abandonment of actions in the part of non-attachment etc., and non-abandonment in nature (form) — this is the difference.

Since sacrifice, charity, austerity etc. are purifiers of the wise;

therefore, like meditation, 'etāni api' — these actions of sacrifice etc. also — which are of the nature of My worship, abandoning 'saṅgam' — mineness in action — and fruits, are to be done day by day until death by the seeker of liberation for the accomplishment of meditation — this is My certain best opinion.

Showing the manner in which these performed become purifiers, He says — 'Etāni'.

The actions of sacrifice etc. which were called 'purifiers' by Me, 'etāni eva' — these indeed — are to be done.

How? Abandoning 'saṅgam' — attachment to agency — they are to be done solely as worship of the Lord; and abandoning 'phalāni' — fruits — they are to be done; and this is 'niścitam me' — My — opinion.

Therefore it is the best.

Thus by the statement of purifying nature, the view 'Tyājyam doṣavat' [18.3] is refuted.

The very meaning stated by 'Niścayam śṛṇu' [18.4] etc. is strengthened in the form of a conclusion for the determination of faultlessness by the verse 'Etānyapi', so there is no redundancy.

He connects the previous and subsequent text by cause-and-effect relationship — 'Yasmāt' etc.

The word 'api' is to indicate the same status as meditation suggested by the word 'Manīṣi', he says — 'Upāsanavadetānyapi'.

He states 'of the nature of My worship' for the establishment of purifying nature etc. of actions through the pleasure of the Supreme Self.

He avoids redundancy of the word 'Sanga' with the statement of 'renunciation of fruit' by saying — 'mineness in action'.

'Niścitam' — Here again doubt should not be entertained by you, this is the idea. 'Uttamam' — The contrary views of others who are not omniscient, like abandonment of nature [of action] etc., are all to be disregarded as inferior, this is the idea.

इन यज्ञ? दान और तपरूप कर्मों का भी पालन करना चाहिए। सम्पूर्ण गीता में संग अर्थात् आसक्ति शब्द का प्रयोग अनेक स्थलों पर हुआ है? जिसका अपना एक विशेष अर्थ है। यह शब्द? कर्तृत्वाभिमानी जीव का अपने कर्मफल के साथ संबंध बताने वाला है। उदाहरणार्थ? नव विवाहित दम्पत्ति को पुत्र की इच्छा होती है। यह सामान्य इच्छा है। परन्तु? यदि वे कहें? हमें पुत्र ही चाहिए? पुत्री नहीं? तो उनका यह आग्रह संग या आसक्ति है। ऐसा आग्रह रखना अविवेक का ही लक्षण है।आसक्ति से अभिभूत पुरुष अपने इष्टफल को प्राप्त करने में अविवेकपूर्ण या आत्मघातक चिन्ताओं से ग्रस्त हो जाता है। फल प्राप्ति के पूर्व ही उसके विषय में चिन्ता और व्याकुलता होने से मनुष्य की कार्यकुशलता समाप्तप्राय हो जाती है। इसलिए भगवान् का उपदेश है कि यज्ञादिक कर्म भी फलासक्ति के बिना करने चाहिए। यह भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण का अपना मत है। इसका अर्थ यह नहीं हुआ कि उनका यह सर्वथा मौलिक मत है। वेदों में भी निष्काम कर्म के सिद्धांत का प्रतिपादन किया गया है।कर्मयोग के जीवन को अपनाने से अन्तकरण की शुद्धि के द्वारा मनुष्य अपने नित्य शुद्धबुद्ध मुक्त स्वरूप का साक्षात्कार कर सकता है। भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण अर्जुन को स्नेहपूर्वक पार्थ कहकर सम्बोधित करते हैं? जो निकट का संबंध बताने वाला नाम है। भगवान् चाहते हैं कि अर्जुन इसी जीवन पद्धति का,अवलम्बन करे।यज्ञादि कर्मों की कर्तव्यता को दर्शाने के पश्चात्? भगवान् आगे कहते हैं

So right here, to decide the specific [truth], He presents the views — 'Tyājyam' etc. 'Doshavat' — possessing sin due to having violence etc. 'Tat' action is to be abandoned; not all [action] which has good fruit — thus some think there is a distinction in Tyaga, like those holding Sankhya views.

Others, entered into the garb of Mimamsakas... 'For the purpose of sacrifice [violence] is understood from scripture'. And by the logic 'Therefore that which is Vedic violence...' etc., violence which is part of the procedure is not violence at all. Because the general scripture 'Do not kill' is annulled there, Syena etc. only is violence. 'And the affix of the bhāvanā is compliant in the part of the fruit'. Therefore one should not abandon others even if connected with violence etc. Those who take refuge solely in scripture for division of what is to be done and not done think they are 'Pandits'. ||3||

From 'Niścayam' etc. up to 'Abhidhīyate'. But there, this is the determination — due to the variety of nature of Gunas defined before, of Tyaga itself being done by mental modification made of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, appearing with that specific nature... in reality, Tyaga is the performance of actions by knowers of Supreme Brahman with equanimity in success and failure etc., by avoiding attachment and aversion, by lack of desire for fruit.

Therefore He says — having done Rajasic and Tamasic Tyaga, there is no connection with fruit [of Tyaga]. But from Sattvic Tyaga, the fruit is the protection of the meaning of scripture. Again, for the sage who has abandoned the grasp of the collection of Gunas, the statement of 'Tyaga' in truth is reasonable.

If sacrifice, charity, and austerity have the capacity to purify the internal organ, then even those performed with desire for fruit would be its purifiers; what is the need for renunciation of desire for fruit? To this He says -- 'Etanyapi' (Even these...). The word 'Tu' (But) is for refuting the doubt.

Although even desire-prompted actions produce purity, due to the nature of Dharma; still, that (purity) is useful only for the enjoyment of that fruit, not useful for knowledge. That has been said by the Vartikakaras -- 'Even in desire-prompted action there is indeed purity, that is for the sake of accomplishment of enjoyment only. For the fruit of Indra cannot be enjoyed with the body of a filth-eating pig etc.'

But they produce purity useful for knowledge -- whatever actions like sacrifice etc.; 'Etani' (These) -- even though being causes of bondage due to being preceded by desire for fruit, by the seekers of liberation, having abandoned 'Sangam' (attachment) -- the insistence on doership as 'I do this thus', and 'Phalani ca' (and fruits) -- which are being desired -- are 'Kartavyani' (to be done) for the purification of the internal organ; this is 'Me Nishchitam' (My decided) opinion.

Therefore indeed, O Partha; between the two views whether actions are to be abandoned or not to be abandoned by those qualified for action, My decided opinion that 'they are not to be abandoned' is 'Uttamam' (Supreme), best. What was said as 'Hear My conclusion there', that very conclusion is concluded here.

'This intention of the Revered Lord (Shankaracharya) has been stated. Being unskilled in the Bhashya, it is difficult to obtain for the dull-witted.'

How performed they become purifiers, He says — 'Etāni'.

But again, even these purifying actions like sacrifice etc. — abandoning 'saṅgam' attachment to them, and again 'phalāni' fruits like heavenly happiness etc. — are to be done as My command; this is 'niścitam' — My determined opinion, 'uttamam' — best among the previously mentioned views.

But even these actions—sacrifice, charity, and austerity—which are said to be purifying, must be performed by abandoning attachment to them and abandoning their fruits; this is 'Me' i.e., My decided and best opinion. Having promised 'Hear My conclusion regarding this' (Gita 18.4), and having stated 'purification' as the reason, the statement 'even these actions must be performed' is essentially a conclusion of the meaning already promised; it is not a statement with a new meaning; because the phrase 'etani api' (even these) is appropriate in the context of the immediate subject matter. For one who has attachment and desires fruit, 'even these' actions are causes of bondage; [but] for the seeker of liberation (Mumukshu), they must be performed—this is the meaning of the word 'api' (even/also). It is not said 'even these' in relation to [comparison with] other actions.

Others, however, describe it thus: Since obligatory (Nitya) actions have no fruit, the instruction 'abandoning attachment and fruits' does not apply. Therefore, 'etani api' implies that those desire-prompted (Kamya) actions which are other than the obligatory ones—'even these' must be performed; what then to speak of the obligatory acts of sacrifice, charity, and austerity? That [view] is false; because it has been established here that even obligatory actions have fruits, by the statement 'sacrifice, charity, and austerity are indeed purifying' (Gita 18.5). For the Mumukshu who wishes to abandon even obligatory actions due to the fear of them being causes of bondage, how can there be an occasion for Kamya actions? Especially since they have been censured by statements like 'action is far inferior...' (Gita 2.49); and because it is certain that Kamya actions are causes of bondage according to 'other than action meant for Yajna...' (Gita 3.9); and also [based on statements like] 'The Vedas deal with the three Gunas' (Gita 2.45), 'Knowers of the three Vedas, drinkers of Soma...' (Gita 9.19), and 'When merit is exhausted, they enter the world of mortals' (Gita 9.21). And because they [Kamya karmas] are far removed [from the current context], the reference 'etani api' is not regarding Kamya actions.

Therefore, for the ignorant person who is qualified for action and is a seeker of liberation—

Thus, even though duty is established for the expounders of Brahman, 'tu' — but — abandoning 'saṅgam' — attachment to one's own agency and 'phalāni ca' — fruits meant for pleasure born of Gunas, in the stated manner, they are to be done — this is My determined opinion, favored by the wise.

And this is the best among all opinions, [so] He says — 'Uttamam'.

एतानि these? अपि even? तु but? कर्माणि actions? सङ्गम् attachment? त्यक्त्वा leaving? फलानि fruits? च and? कर्तव्यानि should be performed? इति thus? मे My? पार्थ O Arjuna? निश्चितम् certain? मतम् belief? उत्तमम् best.Commentary This is a summary of the doctrine of Karma Yoga enunciated before on several occasions. The fault of defect of Karma is certainly not in the action itself? but in the expectation of reward and attachment.Etani api Even these Sacrifice? charity and austerity also? in the same way as other unselfish actions. Even these refers to acts of sacrifice? charity and austerity. Actions that are performed in an unselfish spirit without attachment and idea of agency? do not stand in the way of your obtaining emancipation. When actions are done without expectation of rewards? Rajas and Tamas are destroyed and the mind is filled with Sattva or purity. Actions done with the spirit of selflessness and with discrimination are instrumental in destroying the bonds of Karma (the law of cause and effect).The Lord said Hear from Me the conclusion or the final truth about renunciation (verse 4 above). Then He said with all the force of His authority that acts of sacrifice? charity and austerity should not be given up as they are purifiers of the wise. Even these actions should be performed? etc.? is only the conclusion of what the Lord has stated in verse 4.The word Api (even) implies that the acts of sacrifice? charity and austerity should be done by an aspirant although they bind one who has attachment to the actions and a desire for their reward.Just as the seeds of trees can be rendered barren by being scorched? so the aspirant burns the fruitbearing tendency of Karma through the abandonment of the desire for the reward.

Tu, but; api, even; etani, these; karmani, actions, viz sacrifice, charity and austerity, which have been spoken of as purifiers; kartavyani, have to be undertaken; tyaktva, by renouncing; sangam, attachment to them; and by giving up (hankering for) their phalani, results. Iti, this; is me, My; niscitam, firm; and uttamam, best; matam, conculsion.
Having promised, 'hear from Me the firm conclusion regarding that (tyaga)' (4) and also adduced the reason that they are purifiers, the utterance, 'Even these actions have to be performed. This is the firm and best conclusion', is only by way of concluding the promised subject-matter; this sentence does not introduce a fresh topic. For it stands to reason that the phrase 'even these' refers to some immediate topic under discussion. The implication of the word api (even) is: 'Even these acts, which are causes of bondage to one who has attachment and who hankers after their results, have to be undertaken by a seeker of Liberation.' But the phrase 'even these' is not used in relation to other acts.
Others explain (thus): Since the nityakarmas have no results, therefore (in their case) it is illogical to say, 'by giving up attachment and (hankering for their) results'. The meaning of the phrase etani api (even these) is that, 'even these rites and duties, which are undertaken for desired results and are different from the nityakarmas, have to be undertaken. What to speak of the nityakarmas like sacrifice, charity and austerity!'
(Reply:) This is wrong since it has been established by the text, 'sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers,' that even the nityakarmas have results. For a seeker of Liberation who wants to give up even the nityakarmas from fear of their being causes of bondage, how can there be any association with actions done for desired results? Moreover, the phrase etani api cannot apply to actions done for desired results (kamyakarmas), since they have been denigrated in, '৷৷.indeed, actions is ite inferior' (2.49), and in, '৷৷.by actions other than that action meant for God' (3.9), and since, on the strength of the texts [Which support the two earlier arguments.], 'the Vedas have the three alities as their object' (2.45), 'Those who are versed in the Vedas, who are drinkers of Soma,৷৷.(pray for the heavenly goal by worshipping) Me' (9.20), and 'they enter into the human world on the exhaustion of their merit' (9.21), it has been definitely stated that actions done for desired results are causes of bondage; and also because they are far removed from the context.

Since sacrifices, gifts, austerities etc., are the means for the purification of the wise, therefore, it is My decided and final view that they should be performed as a part of my worship until one's death, renouncing attachment, viz., possessiveness towards actions and their fruits.